Rape Victim Denied Morning After Pill by Hospital (Must Drive to Next Co.)

[JPZenger]

http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/115383211470590.xml&coll=1

"Rape victim denied morning-after pill
July 25, 2006, Harrisburg PA The Patriot-News

"Lebanon PA - A Good Samaritan Hospital emergency room doctor refused to give a rape victim a morning-after pill because he said it was against his Mennonite religion. Rebuffed by the doctor, the woman called her gynecologist, who wrote the prescription. Her local pharmacy told her it was out of the drug and referred her to a sister store in Reading (Note - that is about a 30 minute drive, in the next county). The (doctor) ... said he sees nothing strange about asking a woman from eastern Lebanon County to drive to Reading for a drug. "People drive to Reading to buy jeans. Even if that were the case, that you had to drive to Reading to get this , to me that does not rise to a compulsion that you have to pass laws that have to do something," Dr. Joe Kearns said.

...The state backs up his refusal. Hospitals are not required to prescribe emergency contraception pills, and the state does not keep statistics on how many do, said Richard McGarvey, spokesman for the state Health Department. "There is a law that says if a hospital chooses not to provide a treatment for religious reasons, they can do that," McGarvey said.

...Jenny Murphy-Shifflet, executive director of the Sexual Assault Resource and Counseling Center of Lebanon County, has her focus on the victims. She said she has been trying for a year to get Good Samaritan Hospital to require its doctors to write prescriptions for emergency contraceptives. "No victim should have to run around town after an assault looking for emergency contraceptives," she said." ...The woman who reported the rape was emotionally unable to speak to a reporter yesterday, her father said."

[gumby]

1. It's a new day, and a new way.

When will women's costume be legislated?

'A Handmaiden's Tale' anyone?

[Iris]

29. the real question is - when will more women get pissed off?

[anotherdrew]

48. good question, I've been wondering where the national organizations are?

seems like a one sided fight for years now.

[cally]

2. Anyone who thinks about this should be appalled

I don't care if you identify yourself as prolife, this is appalling. This is forced pregnancy. A denial of medical help. I look at women's history. We had ways to prevent pregnancy and abortificants. The difference is not whether women will try this but whether it succeeds. All I see in stories like this is that women will die.

[Freddie Stubbs]

It's not "forced pregnancy" if she was permitted to drive to another

county to fixx the prescription.

[sui generis]

109. in theory a prophylactic dose of HIV meds can prevent a "morning after"

infection.

If taken the morning after. Does this dumbfuck ass-boil of a doctor think that HIV is god's punishment and she should bear that as well?

That doctor has no business seeing rape cases, period. If he has a problem with treatment options, then he shouldn't be in the business.

[pnwmom]

142. What if she had no access to transportation in the required time period?

Lots of people don't have cars and bus service between counties can be very difficult -- in some areas, non-existent.

Whatever the exact circumstances in HER case, following this precedent in many parts of the country COULD lead to a forced pregnancy.

[ljm2002]

143. Sorry, you are way wrong on this one.

I was going to just come right out and say "F**k You!!!" but thought I'd try and reason instead.

So, let's say you or a loved one were badly injured and brought to the hospital for ER treatment including blood transfusions. But lo and behold, the doctor on duty is morally against blood transfusions. No matter, there's a hospital over in the next county -- and this one will provide an ambulance to get you there.

Meanwhile, the loved one is dying from internal bleeding.

But hey, it's okay. No one is forced to do anything they don't want to do. Except the patient, for whom time is tick-tick-ticking...

Yes, different types of emergencies. But the morning after pills have a time frame during which they can work. After that, they will not work. Then the woman may have to decide whether to have an abortion or not.

Forced pregnancy.

[xxqqqzme]

150. thank you!

If the woman is denied access to prescriptive drugs 2 terminate an unwanted pregnancy - it is FORCED - regardless of whether she can drive or not. Knowing women are being DENIED health care because some man has his balls tied up by some religious mumbo jumbo is criminal.

Why are religious restrictions of one 'faith' allowed 2 trump the decision made by a woman and her doctor? THAT is criminal.

[PegDAC]

193. In a hospital that large,

there was certainly another doctor who could have been called in to write the prescription, instead of making the victim phone her own doctor.

[redqueen]

158. It's INHUMANE! She was raped, for chrissakes! n/t

[progressivebydesign]

205. Ever been raped?

It's inhumane to ask a woman who has already been assualted and traumatized to drive to another county to get a prescription.. it's barbaric.

[Ken Burch]

224. Freddie, you've got no reason whatsoever to defend this kind of

antiwoman mentality. Leave this one alone, please. Dems don't NEED the votes of people who think women should be treated like this.

[Beaverhausen]

3. Maybe this woman can sue the state and overturn the law

They did it in Massachusetts. Mass. is the 8th state to have such a law.
http://www.massecnetwork.org/

[saigon68]

67. Not with these fundamentalist whack jobs herding their sheep to the polls

I had an abotion

[derby378]

4. Apologies to my Mennonite friends on DU...

...but it looks like this poor woman has just been "Pennsylvania Dutched."

[rubberducky]

5. This is so freaking rediculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Punish the victim! How dare someone say it is against thier religion to dipense the proper medication. Then quit your job and work for your church. DO NOT impose your beliefs on anyone else. Shame,shame, shame.

[The Wizard]

101. There's always

the malpractice lawsuit option.

[LuckyLib]

188. Sue, sue, and sue again. It is the only thing that gets their attention!

[Judi Lynn]

6. What a shame half-wits, fools, and assholes can worm their ways

into positions which give them power over others.

This is barbaric. The lives of other people should NEVER be left up to the whims of addled, "religious" emergency room doctors, or pharmacists.

Their right to practise their religion should NEVER be allowed to interfere with the well-being of others.

"Good Samaritan" Hospital. That's a hot one.

[JPZenger]

7. Has Been an Issue With Lieberman

This has been an issue on Air America and many blogs against Joe Lieberman. He said that is a rape victim is refused the morning after pill at a hospital, she can always take a cab to another hospital.

[silverojo]

27. Another reason to love LIE-berman n/t

[Lars39]

8. How many women have these pro-rapist men raped?

They need their dicks slammed in a heavy oak door, dammmit.

[BlueJazz]

26. As a Man....

..I'd like to take a Blow-Torch to the Bastard.

Geez..My sweet normal self turns into "Revenge-Man" when I hear these types of stories.
No wonder so many Women hate Men. These types of Motherfuckers should not be allowed to even
dispense aspirin.

[TheMadMonk]

126. The pair of you should try something a little mre constructive than...

...chasing the bunny rabbit around the tree a baker's dozen times.

IIRC that little scrap of parchemnt you (we) lot claim that the evil ones have been wiping their arses on, rather explicitly forbid's necktie parties. (I believe it's this bit "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"



Prolife, anti-abortion, or whatever else someone might call it IS NOT equal to pro-rape, any more than anti-(Iraq)war is equivalent to pro-terrorism.

Go after this bloke on the grounds that he intruded his personal beliefs on another by all means. I'll agreee 100%. Start playing KKKarl's game and I'll stand up even for the cat's bum (*) himself.

The doctor is an oppinionated arsehole. I believe most of us agree on this. Surely you don't wish others to think the same of you.



Further to the crux of the entire debate: If as many argue here, that the US Constitution prevents the state from legislating in a manner that promotes a particular belief system, then nor can it legislate that an individual must compromise his personal belief system under given circumstances.

Under the Constitution so vociferously defended here, the doctor's religious beliefs are co-equal with the belief systems of every other person in the country you and the victim included.


Further, as a non-state employee (Given the name, I'm presuming that the hospital in question is a religiously supported institution.) neither the doctor nor the hospital is answerable to that particular portion of the constiution since they are not representatives of the state.


Attempt to legislate that a doctor must provide all (legal) services requested of him and you'll be wondering just who's side the ACLU is on. A much better, (and (in the long term) psossibly nastier) solution is to simply require that a "conscientious objector" identify himself to his patients (or clients in general, in the larger scheme of things) as such, and that he does not, through action or inaction, attempt to conceal the existance of any legally permissible course of action available to the patient/client or in any way block access to the same.

[redqueen]

160. BS. not blocking access isn't enough.

if these fundie yahoos want to refuse to provide services they should work at a religious hospital.

[Lars39]

212. Nope, anyone that denies such rudimentary follow-up care to a

rape victim is pro-rapist. He wants the rapist's child to be born.

[superconnected]

9. Like she didn't under go enough demeaning treatment being raped.

Surprised he didn't just tell her it was her fault as he was refusing to help her.

[Iris]

30. exactly. And someone wants to equate a 30 minute trip to get medication

with a shopping trip to buy jeans?

[Zodiak]

124. yes it is not reasonable

there should be no delay in treatment nor an extra cost incurred to the patient.

[redqueen]

161. preventing pregnancy from rape / buying jeans

potayto/potahto

:nuke:

[progressivebydesign]

206. That totally stood out for me, too. Callous! n/t

[Canuckistanian]

10. This is exactly the thing that Lieberman endorses

ON FDL they call him "short-ride" Joe.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Is the hospital required to post a notice to rape victims? Is this the

only hospital in Harrisburg PA that the police can take rape victims? If there is more than one emergency room, then the city council should issue a directive to the police not to use this one.

[JPZenger]

13. Description of area

This is the main hospital in Lebanon County, which has about 120,000 residents in southeastern PA. There are other several other hospitals that are each about 30 to 40 minutes away.

[CanonRay]

12. Let's publish the name, phone and address of this guy, and let him know

what we think!

[KittyWampus]

45. a part of me would really like to harass this asshole for the rest of his

miserable life.

[redqueen]

162. Childish and stupid.

Those are freeptard tactics.

WE don't do that kind of crap.

[Zodiak]

192. agreed

But I suspect they are just venting. Well, I hope, anyways.

[unpossibles]

208. horrible idea

I think what he did was wrong, but we don't need to become a lynch mob or we may as well be NeoCons.

[Zodiak]

14. Compromise

All facilities that receive public funding MUST provide one person on call 24/7 who can perform these essential functions. In this manner, the doctor is free to exercise his religion and the effects of that practice will only affect him/her personally. The patient should not suffer or have her Constitutional Rights violated because of the doctor's religion, but the doctor is free to exercise it all the same.

Everyone wins, except pandering politicians who lose this issue as a honeypot.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Compromise.

If you're going to have a license to practice medicine in this country you need to obey the Hippocratic Oath which includes prescribing emergency contraceptives for rape victims.

If the doctor wants to exercise his constitutional rights to not give emergency contraception to rape victims, he can go ahead and tear up his license.

[Zodiak]

31. I disagree

That is not a compromise. This is a hard-line position. There is no provision in the Hippocratic oath that specifically states that contraception must be given. As far as the harm none argument...that issue apparently is debatable in the eyes of many (not me).

While I appreciate the belief in the hard position by many of my political allies, I do not anticipate that this issue will be resolved in accordance with such a position because it does bring into question the violation of the doctor's rights. I do not wish for ANY services to be reduced to the patient, nor an unreasonable delay (beyond, say, ten minutes for another doctor to walk across a building after the first one recuses). My idea allows for these service issues and patient's rights to be resolved in favor of the hard position at the expense of forcing the doctor's religion to be violated or his liscence revoked.

I say this only because I respect Mennonites tremendously and was not aware they are affected by this issue, and when they choose this position, I know it is because of a deep, abiding belief and not a will to control womens' bodies (at least every one I know). This belief is protected and codified in the Constitution, and I see no reason at all that BOTH Constitutional rights can be wholly-protected in compromise.

Access isn't disturbed, nor is religion. Simple. And also, secular-minded doctors can always be in demand as a fringe benefit.

Take into consideration also that I think what happened to this girl is unconscionable and insensitive. It would not have been so had another doctor been on call and present at that facility to handle the cases recused for religious reasons. As it stands now, this situation is unacceptable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. No.

The hardline position would be the doctor charged with aiding and abetting the rape.

The relevant provision in the Hippocratic Oath is "above all do no harm" and in denying her emergency contraception he's done exactly that.

[Zodiak]

35. Closed minds win no hearts n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Aha.

As if anybody who supports this doctor has either a mind or a heart.

[Zodiak]

38. I don't

See, that is where you are wrong. You are setting up a strawman here. I do not support this doctor and I think that this girl suffered tremendous wrong.

I do, however, support the right of a doctor to have and practice his/her religion as long as it does not interfere at all with the care of patients. I am 100% for a woman's reproductive rights, but I am not in the market for punishing people for their beliefs.

You hard-line position is actualy an unreasonable position that criminalizes a doctor's religion. It flies in the face of everything this country stands for. That is what told me I was dealing with a closed mind. It is not a reasonable argument, and your attempt at painting me as a supporter of this doctor or this system is dishonest and indicates to me that you are not interesting in reasoned debate.

Good day to you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Baloney.

If your interpetation of your religion prevents you from doing your job, you should be doing that job. Especially if the job is in health care.

Don't give me shit about "what this country stands for." This has nothing to do with what this country stands for.

If this doctor's religion said he couldn't treat black people, then he shouldn't be a doctor. If his religion said he can't give blood transfusions, he shouldn't be a doctor. If this doctor's religion said he had to commit human sacrifice, he shouldn't be a doctor.

[Zodiak]

42. ..

[FredScuttle]

55. Seriously

with the difficulty in getting trained, reputable personnel in hospitals, particularly in rural areas, do you think any aspiring doctor wants to job of "fundie stand-in", just waiting around for Dr. Holier-than-thou to refuse to treat rape victims?

Your "compromise" is wholly unrealistic and totally unnecessary. Doctors should do their fucking jobs!

[Zodiak]

70. Well, apparently not all would be fundie stand-ins

considering that Mennonites and Catholics practice the same. As it is now, people are not getting treatment when they need it, so it is hardly an unnecessary change. Under this compromise, all patients at all facilities gain full access and the religious issue can be resolved.

If your argument is that no doctor would take this job, I disagree. What more noble cause than getting proper treatment to people who would otherwise not get itor have to travel for it?

As you and a couple of others argue, Catholic doctors and Mennonite doctors should not be so because of contraception, along with the fundies. That is a hard position that is completely separated from the system as it is now. The backlash against the left for stripping the liscences of so many doctors would be disastrous, especially considering the argument about lack of medical personnel as you present. Personally, I think such a policy is just as authoritarian on the left as any I have seen, and I am fairly liberal.

Since I am not an authoritarian, I cannot promote such a policy. Authoritarianism is one of the reasons I can't stand *. Why would I want it coming from my side?

If you want to press for all of the marbles and continue to allow the issue of doctors not being able to follow their faith at their jobs to not be resolved, feel free. But understand that compromise allows participatory democracy to work.

[Solon]

75. You ask this...

What more noble cause than getting proper treatment to people who would otherwise not get itor have to travel for it?

How about to countinue breathing? I'm not joking, within days of such a policy change at any hospital, the names of the "stand in" doctors will be posted on the Internet as a "hit list" and there is a real threat that they would be killed or harrassed because of a service they provide, even if only on the side.

[Zodiak]

78. Still, that would be a separate issue, a criminal one

Easily handled as a criminal matter of harassment. Honeslty, we cannot limit our policy based on fear of American terrorism just the same as international terrorism. Fear is the goal of terrorism, and if one changes one;s position based on that fear, then the terrorists have won.

It is a concern, but not a deal-breaker. It is also not without precedent if one considers that the same was said about the elimination of segregation. This sort of adjustment is not nearly as charged as segregation was, so I suspect the reaction would be proportionately smaller.

[Solon]

80. Problem is that it isn't a workable solution...

For example, Catholic hospitals will refuse ANY offer for "stand in" doctors that are employed by them that dispense of birth control medication. There will be no compromise there, so how do you handle that?

I don't even like the idea of religious hospitals at all, in fact, I would go so far as to say that religious organizations should be FORBIDDEN from owning medical facilities at all, period.

[illumn8d]

82. That's a private hospital

Take away all public funding.

[Zodiak]

94. This is not an offer

it would be the law. Like I said, it is a policy proposal. It could have the force of federal funds behind it, but I would contend that private hospitals must do the same to be liscenced. The goal is to provide treatment in ALL facilities, not just the ones who are publically funded.

And the last part of your post would be a radical departure from our current system. If these hospitals were shut down, many areas would have no medical facilities at all.

[sgxnk]

116. wow

that's really "tolerant" of you

lol

sarcasm mode: on

[Solon]

199. What does this have to do with tolerance?

Hell I'm religious and don't LIKE religious organizations having power over life and death like in a Hospital setting. Can you imagine if a Christian Identity churched bought a hospital and refused to treat Sickle Cell Anemia? How about Fred Phelp's clan buying a hospital and refusing AIDS patients, or supplying the drugs needed, etc.

[Kailassa]

214. No, he can't imagine that, because those things affect men too.

And some people, women as well as men, hate women so badly they don't even see the evil in a situation where a raped woman is further abused by being judged and refused treatment.

[Solon]

221. Actually I believe it matters little...

I brought up those examples because it shows how a percieved majority, or those in power, can LEGALLY oppress a minority, in the case of Sickle Cell Anemia, its a disease that mostly affects African-Americans, and AIDS is percieved, still, of being a "Gay Disease". I could well imagine both types of examples happening in real life, the Majority still hates the Minority, and Gays are the newest ones on the chopping block, so to speak.

[Kailassa]

215. Religious tolerance has so little bearing on the matter ...

that people are not even allowed to refuse their own children treatment because of religious beliefs.

Much less allowed, as doctors, to refuse vital treatment to a patient.

If you don't see prevention of a rape-induced pregnancy as vital, then I hope something happens to open up your selfish, scum-cloaked eyes.

However, I'm afraid the only thing that would teach someone like you the horrendousness of this situation would be to be raped and left pregnant with the rapist's baby yourself.

[Ken Burch]

225. Would requiring a Mennonite doctor to dispense emergency contraception

be more of an imposition on that doctor's religion than requiring a Catholic family court judge to grant divorces(as such judges are required to do)?

[IndependentVoice]

120. Both sides of this argument are unrealistic and unnecessary

And if neither side can see how their argument is unrealistic, then thats your problem because it is pretty obvious and I'm going to let you figure it out yourselves. I'll give you a hint though you everyone here seems so busy thinking of the system they forgot to consider how human nature will affect this.

[Zodiak]

123. I would like more, please

Please do not bring an argument to the table and refuse to discuss your point at all.

[IndependentVoice]

139. Fair enough

But I'm only saying this once because I don't want to get into a debate over this when we are already off topic.

Lets have side 1 and side 2. side 1 is saying that we should strip doctors of their license because of their religion, and shut down all religious hospitals. In a country where not a single hospital has received higher than a B on its emergency room capabilities, in a country where most emergency rooms are backed up so you may die waiting, in a country where most hospitals are already understaffed it would be the most unthinkably ignorant and intolerant thing I have ever heard of to strip a person of his job license because of his religion, which is, in fact, illegal. Not to mention that would hurt us more than help. 80% of the people in America identify themselves as a christian, now imagine how many doctors we would lose, I don't think I need to say much else here.

On to side 2, whom I find to be considerably more reasonable, more thought out and not based on spur of the moment emotions. Your idea sounds good in theory, the every one wins case. But, (and this is where human nature comes in) think of how people will use the system. Its kind of like communism, which in THEORY is the perfect society. Most people don't know what communism is, completely at least or have a warped idea of it. I AM NOT CONDONING IT, (I know if I don't say that I'll will be haunted) but in theory communism is a perfect society. The idea is that everyone is equal and no one owns land, everyone shares it. All jobs pay the same amount, prices are relatively low for merchandise. A government is set up to help build the an infrastructure for 75 years and after that pulls out and lets the people rule, with the appropriate laws and such set in place. Do you wonder why the soviet union collapsed after 74 years? The people saw that the government would not be pulling out in that next year. It does sound perfect until you factor in human nature. The people who are in power will not any time soon be relinquishing it, especially when they have absolute power that cannot be challenged. Much like your idea is perfect in theory the flaw is that of human and how they will use this system. Doctors would try to line up others after them like you said who did share their beliefs and something like this would happen again, and more frequently. It's hard for me to explain but for the most part we would waste an incredible amount of time passing this when we need to work on other things, when it would change nothing.

Lets say my idea falls into group 3. Its very simple, we keep the system we have. No matter what we do there will always be incidents like this, but remember, they are few and far between. Should the doctor be punished yes even though we can't because that would be religious persecution? yes. Was the doctor showing how strong his faith was when he let a traumatized woman drive around for 30 minutes to get a simple pill? no. The only way we can do anything about this is if we radically rewrote the system, but that would be incredibly foolish.

[Zodiak]

175. Thank you for your reply

I do not believe that my idea is like communism. It is a half-way measure that would prevent this sort of thing from happening again while shutting up the fundies about their religious rights. If implemented well, nepotism and favoritism should not be an element of this policy. If implemented like crap, yes, your fears might very well be realized.

I am no proponent of the status quo because the system is broken as-is. To me (and I only speak for myself), there is no acceptable level of loss of reproductive rights.

I do admit that even my compromise would look like a radical rewriting of the system to a religious hospital. After all, they are going to be forced to divert resources to something they do not believe in. But, the differential access to Constitutional Rights according to geography would be curtailed.

[IndependentVoice]

182. I said they were the same by way that they were perfect in THEORY

not that yours is actually like that and there is no compromise with the fundies, period.

[Zodiak]

185. You may be right about no compromise with fundies.

They have proven themselves to be more and more unreasonable as this horrid period of American history trods along.

As a smilie of theoretical perfection with potential unseen pitfalls, yes, your comparison of my plan to communism is valid. Forgive my hackles being up...I've been called a commie more than once for promoting Keynesian-style regulation so it is an old "other-board" injury. It flares up from time to time.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

203. I personally prefer my side of the argument; That all medications should

be able to be legally obtained without a doctors prescription. In addition, I think that resources about general medicine should be easily available, and drug compainies should have appropriate warnings on their products. In this case, everyone wins. Drug companies get more money, because their products aren't so heavily regulated, people win because they can have access to medications they may need (and as long as they have the money, people can go get wasted on their prescription meds should they be so inclined), and doctors don't have to worry about their religion conflicting with their job. Also, it is no ones fault, other than that of the customer, if they die because they were stupid and mixed and matched meds, or OD'ed something.

I think people still should go to doctors, to figure out which medications are probably best for them, but you should be able to get the drugs on your own. So, as long as the drug companies give sufficient warnings on their products, I think people should feel free to go and get their own damn meds. Or, so health insurance isn't rendered invalid, health insurance companies would only pay for the meds that you have a prescription from a doctor for (so that they don't get conned into paying for someones unnecessary valium or anything).

[Jesterstear]

106. Wrong icon

Don't you have one that says "you found the flaw in my argument, so I'm running away"?

[Zodiak]

114. He did?

All I saw was a continuing refusal to engage in honest debate and more strawmen.

Such a post needs no response.

So where is the flaw? I'd like to know, and please refrain from using logical fallacy to express it (non sequitirs, strawmen, slippery slopes, etc.).

It is a waste of time responding to logical fallacy and emotional grandstanding. I will only respond on this subthread when these practices are cleaned up. It is gumming up the middle of this thread.

But if you think I am a "runner", you are welcome to debate me in private.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. Sure did.

A doctor's medical decisions should be based solely on medical reasons. A doctor that makes medical decisions based on religious reasons, or to be more blunt- sexist decisions disguised as religious reasons, isn't doing his job.

[Zodiak]

176. That may be true, in theory

But that it is not how it is practiced now. No amount of pressing for punitive measures against this doctor will get the next woman her treatment. Cutting his selfish adherence to his religion from his patient's actual care is the best way to go.

[bettyellen]

91. exactly right. he can't be a cafeteria doctor and with hold treatment

to some and not others.
men easily forget because they assume they have autonomy over their bodies. always have.
women deserve the same, no ifs about it.

:applause:

[sgxnk]

117. neither men nor women

have autonomy over our bodies

the claim is laughable

try to make that argument while using heroin and see how far it gets you

or try donating an organ for $$$

the idea that the govt. recognizes that we have "autonomy" over our bodies is a farce

[bettyellen]

219. if men were forced to breed you might have a point.....

can't have heroin, and to you that's comparable to being forced to carry a bay to term?
this kinda thoughtless bullshit is how we women got in this position. stupid selfish bs like that.
thanks for the reminder.

[sui generis]

133. we make our own medical choices. A doctor is just another technician

A doctor can RECOMMEND a treatment, but it is the exercise of our choice to follow that regimen.

Therefore when a doctor refuses a common treatment without medical grounds to do so, the doctor is making a medical decision for us, which is unethical and beyond the scope of the doctor/patient relationship.

It is one thing for a doctor to say he believes that the morning after pill would be a health risk to the mother and be able to substantiate that, but to quote his faith as a basis for denying her a common treatment is medically unethical. The doctor is a servant to the patient, not the other way around.

Just as soon as doctors start paying us instead of the other way around, they can start enforcing medical decisions for us.

[tll]

151. there it is

After all, our rights only extend as far as the next person, no?

Religious freedom does not just apply to those of a religion.

And certainly, no one is suggesting a pharmacist, doctor, nurse or other technician take a pill themselves or have or perform certain procedures on themselves or their likeminded friends and family.. . There's the compromise....

Respect for the beliefs of others, acceptance of those beliefs and these compromises that come with it in one's professional life are, I think, are among the prices of 'religious freedom.'

That is, if you choose a career path that might occasionally put you at odds with your personal convictions.

Unfortunately, fundamentalists seem to think that street only runs one way.

[Zodiak]

178. The gray area here

is that these doctors argue that they are watching out for the "other" patient (the zygote). They cage their arguments within this, and frankly, since the issue of whether a zygote is a "human" can never be resolved, they have found their wiggle room. Science can never answer this, deferring to philosphers and politicians, and neither of these two grops are known for definitive answers.

That 0.0000003% of doubt is what keeps the entire reproductive rights issue on the table and hurting the progressive cause. Separate their beliefs from actually being able to hurt anyone, and they can grandstand and theorize on their God all they want....freely and without affecting others.

[tll]

196. But isn't that their fallback argument?

First and foremost, they trot out the "violating my religious beliefs" argument.

An argument which would hold up better in court than a crusading doctor or pharmacist battling to save a zygote over the woman on this side of the womb.

And isn't that they perceive the zygote to be another "patient" with rights equal to those of any of us walking the streets rooted more in religion? The whole life-begins-at-conception belief seems to be most often tied to a religious aspect.

Perhaps the solution is to establish once and for all at what point one becomes a citizen with rights and privileges.

Nevermind. There's a scary can of worms.

[Zodiak]

197. Indeed, it is a scary can

A can that the Repukes relish in opening. I am interested in defanging them and codifying 100% access into law to prevent this from happening again.

And I honestly do not know which argument will hold up in court. I am scared to find out these days. The good (and bad) thing is that the court has stayed out of this matter so far.

This must be decided on policy in a poltical climate. An uphill battle, I admit.

[sui generis]

211. hah, fine then, send the bill to my zygote

Since it was the zygote who received treatment, clearly, the zygote should pay the bill.

[illumn8d]

168. Another great reason to make Plan B an OTC drug

That would end this debate.

[Zodiak]

177. Yes it would n/t

[Ex Lion Tamer]

90. Nice post.

And I agree. I've said it before: Not all pro-lifers are hateful misogynists. I know many who are very sincere in their beliefs.

Your compromise makes a great deal of sense.

[Jesterstear]

105. Doctor's rights?

This person chose to become a doctor. They did so knowing in full what that job would entail. That means if there was something in the job they didn't agree with, they should have looked for another vocation.

The woman, on the other hand, probably didn't choose to be raped.

Your argument is a load of bull.

Allowing doctors and pharmacists to refuse medication or even treatement on religious grounds opens up a can of worms. Right now it's just this, but hey... maybe I'll become a pharmacist or doctor. Then, when I have a job, I'll decide that the only way you can be healed is if you accept the power of the Lord into your life! I'll refuse to provide any medication, all my consults will be preaching at the person as to how medicine is the work of the devil and if you believe enough the Lord will heal you! I'll get paid to sit around and do nothing!

Maybe next, we can have good Christian women become strippers or exotic dancers or whatever, then refuse to take their clothes off, but they still have to be paid!

[Zodiak]

113. This is a policy proposal

Not a defense of the doctor OR this situation. Please respond to the proposal at hand and do not misinterpret a compromise proposal as tacit approval of this situation. This is the third time I have had to deflect this erroneous strawman in this subthread.

And last I checked, doctors and pharmacists ARE being allowed to deny treatment based on religious grounds. Should it be that way? No, but it is. The can of worms has long been opened.

So how to fix it?

Your other argument is a slippery slope argument that is divorced from this present situation. If you need to create fantastic hypotheticals to get your point across, then I would say that your argument contains far more "bull" than my own.

And we are not talking about any more than contraception, a small aspect of a doctor's job. Not the very defintion of it like your stripper analogy.

[sgxnk]

118. yes

yes, it SHOULD be that way

should a dr. who thinks breast implants are wrong, be forced to provide them?

etc. etc. etc.

no dr. can legally withold medicine that would put a person's life in danger

they can, do and should be able to withold (ie not prescribe) medicine or therapeutic modalities that they find personally unconscionable

they are not automatons.

[Solon]

200. Pregnancy is also considered life threatening in certain circumstances...

for example, in pubescent girls, women develop complications all the time that puts their lives in danger, so really it COULD be withholding medication that would put a person's life in danger. There goes that argument.

[IndependentVoice]

128. I have yet to hear of a case that extreme ever have you?

Besides that would get the doctor striped of his license fast, the majority of religious people are not fundies so you know, they would be appalled by this.

BTW they already do have christian strippers. It was on an episode of Bill Maher don't remember which one though, if you wanted to find it you would have to go through the episode list of last season and check all the New Rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

107. Sometimes, just sometimes,

the truth lies squarely on the "hardline" position.

[Zodiak]

115. Does it in this case?

Is it "the truth" to strip thousands of doctors of thier liscences and shut down religious hospitals? That is the hard-line position I opposed.

Are we fighting to punish these doctors or get health care to women? I am for the latter, but not the former.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. Nope, that's NOT the hard-line you opposed.

Nobody talked about shutting down religious hospitals. You inserted THAT as a straw man AND YOU KNOW IT.

I stand with Bornagainholligan's position. Hold doctors responsible for providing necessary healthcare, and that's that. Don't distort people's words.

[illumn8d]

171. Actually someone else mentioned

That they didn't like religious ownership of hospitals, I think it was edited out of the post, because it's not there anymore.

[Zodiak]

179. Thank you

it was, indeed, my response to that very position (didn't know it was edited out). And the liscences taken away, or torn up, people of faith being prevented from entering the field. Those are extreme positions and relective of authoritarianism from the left, by my estimation.

I am a libertarian progressive, so giving out the maximum amount of freedom to both sides of this issue is desirable for me (hopefully desirable for both sides, as well, but I can see from some responses here that even a compromise where women get 100% access to reproductive rights is not good enough).

[Solon]

230. Don't lie about my posts, either of you...

Its unbecoming, really, post 80 and I still stand by every word I said in that post.

[Zodiak]

180. Yes they did talk about it

and they discussed not letting religious doctors have liscences, or that if you have a strong position on this you should not be in the field. All positions that would shrink the healthcare professional pool and make religious people feel like they aren't wanted. They are hard-line positions.

Please do not misrepresent my position, especially yelling while you do so.

[illumn8d]

84. You might not want

to cite the Hippocratic Oath for this argument, as the oath itself specifically states:

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath

[Hosnon]

99. I can see why the Oath is referred to but many doctors and others treat

it like it's the word of God or something. It's not heavenly law that must be obeyed strictly.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

131. I understand that as

"Don't let unqualified people perform dangerous procedures on themselves. Refer them to a doctor."

[Solon]

59. Compromise my ass...

That Quack shouldn't be a doctor, period, he should lose his license over this bullshit, if you can't do the job, don't take the job.

[Zodiak]

66. OK, once again, this is a policy compromise

not an excuse for the doctor.

And this is about contraception alone, not the other duties of this doctor. We have no idea whether he is a Quack as a whole.

But if you want to vent on imagined ghosts in my post, feel free.

[Solon]

68. So? The Doctor is licensed by the STATE, let THEM set the ground...

rules. This should be one of those rules, if you deny a patient medical treatment for NON-MEDICAL reasons, then YOU lose your license, permanently.

[Zodiak]

71. Which do you wish?

Do you wish for states to determine how to resolve this matter (leaving lots of red state women with no protection) or do you want all of these doctors to lose their liscences as a federal mandate?

By neither method do I see this issue resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but at least you will know what you stand for and not mistakenly attempt to counter another's post with self-contradiction.

[Solon]

73. I probably would prefer this being handled by the Medical Boards...

of each state. However, the legislatures are ALREADY overriding the standard rules governing pharmacies in these type of situations, putting in "conscious clauses" in the rules. This I don't like, but what Illinois did was perfectly acceptable.

[Zodiak]

77. I do not like it, either

But we are faced with the inability of the judicial branch to stop such legislation and tens of states affected by this move. As long as we simply take a position emotionally without a policy plan, I am afraid this will become a political football (no one wants Constitutional Rights to be a football). Stripping liscences is a scorched-earth policy plan that has more negatives than positives in my estimation.

We need to take this issue off of the table, and the only way to do that is make everyone happy,if possible. It doesn't matter to me if a doctor has a religion that prevents him from certain aspects of practice (he can have it), but what IS important to me is that any woman, anywhere, can get the service they need. They do not have that, now, and upon analysis, they never did if one considers the limits to services at a Catholic hospital, for example.

The only way to guarantee that women have these rights is to make these admittedly goofy doctors happy and get them out of the pockets of the fundie Republicans. It will become dreadfully clear which doctors are only interested in making women suffer because they will not want this compromise. At that point, these doctors drift from a Constitutionally-protected argument to a "take someone's rights away" argument, which is far less tenable and popular.

[sgxnk]

119. so...

so, if the medical board of the state ruled (by simple majority) that no dr in the state should provide abortion, you would be ok with that?

you seem perfectly fine appealing to authorities AS LONG AS those authorities rule the way you want/think they will

that's a dangerous reliance. placing your "faith" in legislative/regulating bodies. sometimes these bodies may come to a different conclusion than you would like.

[Caoimhe]

135. agreed 100% n/t

[calmblueocean]

79. I think it's a great idea.

Instead of drowning in outrage, just take a practical approach and make sure that someone is on staff who can get the job done.

I just wish I could think of a way to extend this to pharmacies. They don't take any federal funds (as far as I know, anyway) so you'd have to find another way to compel compliance. But making sure hospitals are required to have someone on hand who can supply emergency contraception solves at least some of the problem. It's stupid to think that merely passing a law ordering the pharmacist or doctor to prescribe or dispense E.C. will change anything. If anything, the attention the pharmicist or doctor might get from grandstanding makes it even more likely.

[illumn8d]

81. I agree

In an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary, but taking a hard-line here is the wrong approach.

[smoogatz]

144. Nonsense.

Either the patient has the right to be seen by a competent physician or they don't. A physician who refuses to prescribe a safe, effective and approved medication when the patient--who happens to be a rape victim, for God's sake--requests it is NOT competent, and is not providing proper care to the patient. Religious belief is no excuse for failing to provide AMA approved, safe, effective and comprehensive patient care. If that doctor refuses to provide standard care to rape victims, he should not be treating them.

[illumn8d]

170. It's a private hospital

And they can do what they want until the laws change.

[smoogatz]

172. Right.

So there's no need for them to do anything other than what they've already done. That's their policy. They're certainly not offering any sort of "compromise" measures to ensure that their patients receive competent care. Why should they?

[smoogatz]

134. No ER doc in any publicly funded hospital should be legally

allowed to withhold medically approved, standard treatment from patients on religious or any other grounds. Period. What the hell is a Mennonite doing treating rape victims in the first place? This is not an issue in which there's room for "compromise," IMO. The patient's right to receive proper care/treatment trumps the doctor's right to practice his dumbass religion on the job, every single time. If you're a religious nutcase who thinks rape victims ought to be forced to give birth to the children of the men who raped them, you should not be treating rape victims, end of fucking story.

[Zodiak]

181. So what do you propose?

I agree with you, in theory, but how would you change the rules? Would you force these doctors to do it? Would you force them out of the profession? Would you provide for another doctor immediately? Would you allow private hospitals to do this but not public ones?

If secularism was codified in the Constitution, this would be an easy matter. However, religious freedom was codified as well as individual rights. Here is the case where one right is pitted against another.

This policy demand is important to me because I really would like to see some of the outrage energy we spend here put to good use.

[smoogatz]

202. ER doctors should be required to provide the best possible care

to their patients, period. Let's put the shoe on the other foot: suppose I'm an ER doc, and one night the EMS guys wheel a man in on a gurney. He's been terribly injured in a car accident--wasn't wearing his seatbelt, flung through the windshield, suffering from severe internal bleeding, head injury, the whole deal. A police officer accompanying the patient mentions that he was injured while fleeing the scene of a crime--in fact, he had just committed a brutal rape a few minutes before the accident. "Fuck him," I say. "Get him out of my ER. I'm not treating him. Let somebody else deal with this slimeball." Should I have the right to refuse comprehensive medical care to an alleged rapist? Should I be subject to criminal and civil penalties for doing so? Should I, as an ER doc, have the right to deny any kind of care to anyone I deem unworthy, just as a matter of "conscience?"

[qanda]

146. Honestly, the problem with your position is that it's reasonable

And we all know that reason has no place on a political discussion board. :sarcasm:

I think you have a very good idea here and it's amazing that so many disagree.

[smoogatz]

147. It's a matter of principle.

Should a rape victim have the right to be seen immediately by a physician who will offer them effective, comprehensive care? Or should the patient's right to that care be trumped by the doctor's right to practice his/her religion on the job--thereby failing to provide proper treatment? Why is a physician allowed to treat rape victims if he/she refuses to provide proper care? I don't seen any need to compromise on this issue. Either the patient has the right to proper care, or she doesn't.

[qanda]

159. I'm not saying it's right

But as it stands now the poor woman had to drive all around the green Earth to get the prescription. While we work towards changing the law, at least have something in place to eliminate the suffering of the victims.

[smoogatz]

164. The threat of an enormous lawsuit used to be sufficient.

But now a number of states, evidently including Pennsylvania, have these idiotic so-called "right to conscience" laws, which make it impossible to sue medical providers who engage in malpractice for religious reasons. It's outrageous, and probably ultimately unconstitutional. My right to feel good about myself should not trump your right to proper emergency medical care.

[Zodiak]

186. Agreed.

You acknowledge that the political landscape sucks, so how get the fundies to come off of that hard-line position enough to reverse the trend?

I propose a compromise position that sacrifices zero rights to the patient. We aren'tconceding anything other than that doctor feeling good about himself, and personally, I do not care about losing on that one. He's gonna feel good about himself either way.

But carry on. I do not begrudge you your position. I just do not think we can get a seat on the negotiating table with it. Classic DU principle vs. strategy argument between allies.

[Zodiak]

184. Well, 1000+ posts and it was bound to happen sometime

Other than scoring senators and being called a far-left freako who is hell-bent on destroying the party, I have received few flames on DU. Certainly never from the left.

This is a first for me.

Don't worry, I still love everyone. Well, almost (looks at ignore list).

[redqueen]

163. Ridiculous.

There is no need for a non-religious medical facility to bend over backwards so whacked-out fundies don't have to dirty their hands actually practicing medicine.

If doctors want to refuse to perform needed services they should work at religious facilities.

[Zodiak]

183. There are some areas of the country

where religious facilities are all there are for miles and miles. I am not comfortable with the limited access in these areas. These hospitals still receive public funding, though, because they get indigents, etc.

A non-religious facility would have no problem meeting this requirement because practically every doctor around the fundie at that facility would be happy to accept the case, and the money.

[redqueen]

we need socialized medicine... socialized hospitals

depending on the religious people for these services is obviously not going to work anymore, so cut the funding for them, and start places with equal access for everyone.

[Zodiak]

191. I agree with that

wholeheartedly. I really wish we were in a place where we could get that expediated. More fighting for us, it seems. First, convince our party, then convince America to vote that way (many already do believe that way, so we have a foothold).

It would take a massive infrastructure investment...money draining in Iraq and the pockets of the rich as we type.

[Zodiak]

195. Final note

Thanks for the comments on the idea. I can see that this thread is perhaps not the best place to present such an idea because emotions run high upon reading the OP. It is understandable because what happened to this woman is not acceptable at all.

However, even though many of us would like our ideals become reality, we are not faced with that situation at present. Women are losing their reproductive rights across the country at an alarming rate. Our passionate ideals on this issue need to be refined with sensible positions to promote in the many reaches of the political discourse in which DUers participate (other than here). If you disagree with me and want me to "sit on it", fine, but I honestly belive this.

For us to change the discourse, we need to come up with and discuss sound policy positions. I apologize to anyone who believed that I was defending this doctor or felt one iota less sympathy for this woman than everyone else here. I am not guilty of either.

Continue at your leisure and I'll be sure to lurk to read what all have to say (I've responded far too much already).

[DerBeppo]

207. But it wasn't the doctor...

Most of the comments seem to confuse the decision of the doctor with the official policy of the entire hospital. It's not like the woman had the bad luck of seeing that particular doctor on that particular night, no matter who she saw at that hospital, she would have received the same response. Since it's the entire hospital that shares this belief, then tying provisions like you suggest to state funding would, in essence, be the state determining how a religious group practiced their religion.

No matter how politically charged the issue is, emergency contraception is still not the same as a blood transfusion--nowhere near, in fact.

[iverglas]

209. who's preventing the doctor from exercising his religion???

A doctor who does not want to provide medical services is at completely liberty to NOT BE A DOCTOR. Nobody's forcing this piece of shit to practise medicine.

And nobody wins when people who are permitted by a society to perform services that no one else is permitted to perform refuses to perform them for discriminatory reasons.

A JoHo (as has been pointed out) would never be permitted to practise medicine *and* refuse to participate in blood transfusions. A KKKlucker would never be permitted to practise medicine *and* refuse to provide services to people of colour.

Why misogynist scum sheltering behind a religion should be permitted to practise medicine and refuse to provide services to women, I cannot imagine. (And the Mennonites I have known would certainly not support this cretin.)

"Compromise" is NOT something that is done with fundamental rights.

A woman has a right to be treated by a health care provider on the same basis as any other individual: her need for health care (and, in places where it's relevant, her ability to pay for it). Period, full stop.

[daleo]

15. What would that doctor have done if it had been his wife or daughter

That had been raped? I doubt he would have said "God wants you to have the rapist's baby. We will give it a loving home."

[mnhtnbb]

18. Written the script himself and been sure his wife/daughter took the pill

These self-righteous assholes are the first ones to demand abortion services when it's their family in need.

I lived in MO for 6 years and the primary MD that I took my kids to told me that the anti-choice people were in his office in a NY minute when their kids got pregnant wanting a referral to an abortion provider.

[daleo]

25. I don't doubt it a bit

Absolutists suddenly become relativists when their interests are at stake.

[sgxnk]

121. yes, i've noticed that

i;'ve noticed that among many political posters in this and other forums and at levels of the political spectrum

ideals often fail when it's their petty cause that gets upset

[MountainLaurel]

40. No, what he would have said

Was that she deserved to get raped and having this baby was her punishment from God.

[kestrel91316]

61. Actually, that's exactly what a good Mennonite would do, and probably

what this guy would do. At least they put their money where their mouths are.

But I think the truly Christian thing to do would be to let another Dr. take over at that point, to do the Rx. The Mennonite Dr. could wash his hands of it.

[daleo]

65. That's what they ought to do

I haven't found any faith any better than any other, as far as sticking to principles goes, when their own family's future is the one at stake.

[PegDAC]

194. Nope.

My father was a Mennonite who converted to Baptist when he married my mother. When my oldest sister got pregnant, he went into denial.

[imouttahere]

102. No, many of them would insist their daughter have the baby....

then give it up for adoption.

[Solly Mack]

16. Nothing like piling on insult to injury

but hey, as long as the doc feels so moral about it, I'm sure that's all that matters.

too bad his morality doesn't include compassion for those in pain

If rape wasn't bad enough, let's make the road to recovery as painful as possible

we'll show them wimmin who want to prevent babies just because they were raped...what's a little rape compared to the joys motherhood?

Is a sarcasm tag really needed?

[Warpy]

17. Hospitals that refuse reproductive services to women

need to advertise themselves as MEN'S hospitals ONLY.

Reproductive healthcare is the major need for healthcare for women, especially young women. Any "full service" hospital that denies it needs to restrict their clientele to MEN.

Full service, my pasty, flabby ass.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. It's just a "short ride"... ask Joe Lieberman

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

20. Homepage for these Good Samaritans

http://www.gshleb.org/default.cfm?id=1

:puke:

[Paulie]

23. Do a search on RAPE at the site

The only time it seems to come up on their own webpages is because RAPE is in the word therapeutic...

Search morning after pill and ZIPPO.

[EFerrari]

24. They do have a number for "Womens Health"

believe it or not.

[DRoseDARs]

97. This can be interpreted to mean he has violated hospital policy...

http://www.gshleb.org/body.cfm?id=362&action=detail&aeproductid=Adam2004_1&aearticleid=001955

"Treatment includes addressing any potential for pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, offering information pertinent to those possibilities, and providing care for the immediate physical and emotional trauma incurred as well as planning follow-up care."

[Megahurtz]

21. Sick Fucks!

I am so sick of this!!!:puke::mad:

[Iris]

28. Do people drive to Reading to buy jeans right after they've been raped?

My god. This is disgusting.

[brentspeak]

32. This quack doctor considers use of the day-after pill to be an "abortion"

Wonder what other 17th century scientific and medical opinions this twit has.

[Lars39]

33. Exactly!

Has it been so long since he had anatomy and physiology in college that he can't remember?
He needs his license taken away.

[MountainLaurel]

41. That may not be far from the truth

I work in a med center and read somewhere that it takes about 10 years for medical research and innovations to be incorporated into the daily practice of most physicians.

[illumn8d]

44. Actually he probably wouldn't have cared if he had 17th century opinions

Abortion performed before the quickening wasn't considered immoral.

[lisby]

37. This is beyond disgusting.

Someone in that hospital emergency room, or someone in that greater hospital, had the ability to get that drug for that woman. That single doctor was not the only doctor in that building that night. Expecting the victim of a horrific crime to get in a car and drive 30 miles to pharmacy is beyond my ability to fathom. Someone else there should have stepped in.

Lisby:grr:

[xchrom]

43. just another example of the brutal ignorance of the

religous conservative.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. We've been dealing with this issue here in CT, too

Catholic hospitals saying they shouldn't have to provide rape victims with full medical treatment (that is, emergency contraception).

I say, if they receive ANY gov't funds, they should be required to provide full services. If their consciences are so powerful, then they can fund themselves.

[HockeyMom]

50. Only hospital in our town was bought out by the Catholic Church

The people in the town DID fight this takeover, to no avail. As in this story, the obvious reason was for the treatment of rape victims, but it runs the gamut from birth control to sterilizations to end of life issues. Fortunately, we do have a non sectarian hospital within 15 minutes of it. Our local precinct, as a matter of course, does NOT take rape victims to this Catholic Hospital, but to the State University Hospital 10 miles away, where all women are given a CHOICE as to the treatment they receive.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. The bitch of it is, even if he (mistakenly) believes that the morning

after pill causes an abortion, HE is not the one causing it. He is only providing medication. She can take it, or not. Her decision. Not his. If he believes god would be vindictive over this, the onus would be on her, not him.

[calmblueocean]

83. This can't be said enough: Plan B stops pregnancy by preventing ovulation!

The dumbass doctor doesn't even know how the fucking pills work! Here's how Wikipedia explains it:

Emergency contraception pills are birth control pills, containing the same ingredients as birth control pills, but at a higher dosage. Like birth control pills, emergency contraception pills work by preventing ovulation -- the release of an egg.

...

The emergency contraception pill should not be confused with mifepristone (also called Mifeprex, and formerly known as RU-486), an abortifacient which is taken after implantation has occurred, aborting the pregnancy. The morning-after pill must be taken before implantation, or it will have no effect.

And now, from the article:

Emergency contraception, often called the morning-after pill, gives a high dosage of birth-control medicine that can prevent pregnancy.

It's a pill that Dr. Martin Gish, the physician who treated the rape victim, said he has prescribed.

"This is an issue I've struggled with for years," Gish said. "My current feeling is life begins at conception, and I feel that anything that interferes with that" causes an abortion.

"The dilemma I have is the whole rape issue: Which side are you more concerned with? Are you more concerned about the mother or the life that was possibly created? That's my dilemma," he said. "I personally don't have this thing worked out. I'm not sure how my faith can line up with my practice at times of what I'm asked to do."

Even the author of the article didn't bother to find out the difference!

I wish someone there would have stood up and shouted at Dr. Gish:

"HEY OLD MAN! If you don't give her these pills, you may CAUSE AN ABORTION! Because if she doesn't want to have her rapist's baby, that's just what she'll do. You can stop an abortion by preventing conception... if you give her the fucking pills! Dumbass!

Argh! This shit is unconscionable.

[emmadoggy]

141. Amen.

.

[anotherdrew]

49. he's no Mennonite, they use electricity in hospitals last I checked.

[ovidsen]

53. Don't confuse with the Amish

Mennonites have no problem with electricity.

FYI...

[leesa]

51. He should not be an emergency room MD if he is unable to carry out the

duties of the job.

[Posteritatis]

52. "Doctors have rights too"?

If a doctor wants his rights to include refusing to treat patients based on anything other than medical necessity, then he's in the wrong damned profession.

I'm waiting for news of doctors refusing to treat patients because they're gay, black or Muslim, myself, though I imagine all three have happened recently.

[MGD]

56. "...then he's in the wrong damned profession."

Absolutely. The needs of the patient are supposed to come first; if that isn't possible, get a new fucking job.

[sgxnk]

122. false analogy

[Posteritatis]

166. Er, there are no analogies in that post. (n/t)

[sgxnk]

167. yes, there were

the analogy was between a dr refusing to prescribe day after pill to a pregnant woman, and a dr refusing to treat a gay, a black, etc.

the analogy was made

and it's a false analogy

hth

[Posteritatis]

204. "What next?" != analogy

That said, even if it was it wouldn't be a false one anyway. Refusing treatment for one kind of idiotic religious reason and refusing for another idiotic religious reason are identical in my book, at least as far as this kind of thing goes.

That, and both sets of actions are protected by the same law in a few states now.

[Crunchy Frog]

213. The woman in question was NOT pregnant

and if she had been, the pill would not have had any effect on the pregnancy. Even by the most extreme definitions, Plan B does NOT cause abortion. It works by preventing ovulation, not by preventing implantation.

Please get the basic scientific facts right before accusing someone else of making false analogies.

[Kailassa]

216. If you call that an analogy, and then call it false,

one can only assume that you believe it's alright to discriminate against one group or another by witholding appropriate medical treatment.

Now which group is it ok to dscriminate against, pregnant women, or gays, blacks, etc?

It's not really so long ago that women were believed to have no souls, and negro slaves were treated by vetenarians, bcause they were considered to be livestock.

Luckily, the rest of the world has come a long way since then. Unluckily, too much of America has not.

[MGD]

54. I'm a registered nurse and, for religious reasons,

I can no longer care for Mennonites or other pricky fundamentalist types. Oh never mind, I forgot that I put my patient's needs before my own.
spelling

[The Sushi Bandit]

57. BOSTON LEGAL did a story on this subject ..

Scary on how their writers time and again predict something that ends up on the news!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

58. So, they are going to hide behind freedom of religion. Sad n/t

[pokercat999]

60. I hate the politicians in this country. The ones that are

powerful enough to let this happen and the ones who are powerless to do anything about it. It's time to act, vote them all out!

[chelsea0011]

62. Pull his license. He shouldn't be practicing.

[The Count]

63. Can we get the Joemobile to give her a ride? Boxer should assist too.

[DanCa]

64. Pro rape thats what those who are still backing Dubya are about. (nt)

[Gloria]

69. No problem getting Viagra, though!!!! Patriarchy back in full force...

[eggbeater]

72. Un F-ing believable

I will go on record right now as saying that Im am very much against abortion as a form of birth control.
Yet at the same time I dont think that a women should have to carry the baby to term in the case of rape, incest or when the womens life is in question.

I can not for a second believe that anyone would force a women to have a child that was a product of rape. not for a second.

in the first place, the morning after a rape I doubt that the egg and sperm have connected and there is really no reason to think that a life is being killed.

I also have a hard time thinking that there are men out there that would willing accept the responsibility of raising the product of a rape that his wife was subjected to. and as you know, the law states that the father is responsible for any child born of the marriage, and a rape child is considered born of that marriage.

things like this make it hard for me to continue to hold my line of thought that abortions are not always a good thing.
if there cannot be a compromise then maybe I need to recheck my thinking.

[NoodleyAppendage]

74. If men could become pregnant from rape, this wouldn't be an issue.

Dr. Joe Kearns appears to forget his hippocratic oath of "do no harm." I'm sure he thinks that he's saving a potential life, but in doing so he is "harming" this poor rape victim psychologically. The rape victim should lodge a complaint with the state medical board and hassle him enough that he will think again the next time this sort of event happens.

Good Samaritan Hospital...my ass. Talk about false advertising.

J

[maxrandb]

112. If men could become pregnant

not only would abortion and the morning-after pill be legal...they would be TAX DEDUCTABLE

[Systematic Chaos]

76. I sent them a message on their "Contact Us" page.

Couldn't help myself. This shit just makes me about ill.

"It sure is reassuring to know that all the religious nutbags can crow over the "moral triumph" of one of your "Good Samaritan" doctors.

I wonder how quickly your worthless excuse for a doctor would seek out a "remedy" for HIS daughter under these circumstances, or would he just drive to the next county and shop for clothes?"

[sakabatou]

85. Takku... (jeeze...)

[2Design]

86. rant - what about the father, brother, cousin, relative,

who gets this girl pregnant - these people are discusting. what are they trying to hide, their own shortcomings?
This stinks. Just like them being against gays and then finding out a number of them are gay. Or being against clinton for affairs and most of them are having an affair. These people are so sick. Faux christians. Every time I see a SUV or Van and they are rude on the road - I know they are republicans - they are so mean spirited - their control of their wives, children is wrong - battered syndrome - this is so dsyfunctional and the rest are such enablers for bad behavior - remember these guys think torture is frat stuff - what do they do to their own families at home -

[christx30]

87. Does that mean that a fundie

doctor who believes that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from God for homosexually/promiscuity can
refuse to treat patients?
Those people make me so sick.

And those pharmacists that refuse to fill those prescriptions for morning after? If I owned that store,
I would fire the guy for not serving my customers.

[gaspee]

88. You know,

If I lived somewhere abortion was illegal and I couldn't get the morning after pill after having been raped, and was, in effect, forced to have a rapist's baby, I would kill the fucker and kill myself. No fucking way in this universe would I give birth to a rapist's baby. Period. I would die first. but I'd take a few people out with me. From discussions with friends, I am far from the only woman who feels this way. I wonder if these doctors consider women to be full fledged human beings, or more along the lines of incubators.

[droidamus2]

89. Get your own hospital

I see this the same way I see people that want religion in public schools. If you want to practice your religion in all cases (when it is medical even to the detriment of your patient) then open your own hospital and let it be known that due to your religious beliefs your hospital will not be 'full service' . If you want religion in schools, open your own accredited school and teach all the religion you want a la Catholic schools. If on the other hand you want to work in the public sphere then do your job and keep your religious beliefs to yourself. This even begs the fact that a lot of these fools just hide behind 'religion' to enforce their own warped vision of the way the world should be. I admit not being religious myself I have a big problem with 'freedom to worship as you see fit' meaning the rest of us have to kiss ass to their beliefs. Worship as you see fit but realize everybody doesn't agree with you and again either work where it is totally above board and acceptable (private) or do your damn job (public). End of rant!!!

[Joe Bacon]

92. LIEberman thinks it's OK

Sure, let a rape victim get turned away by a catholic hospital if she asks for the morning after pill! What could be more Christian than that, Right, Phony LIEberman?

:sarcasm: mode now off...

[sangfroid]

93. This opens an interesting can of worms...

I'm a Fish and Game Officer and more than once in my career, I've been called upon to render first aid to some butthead who's hurt themselves while playing Great White Hunter. Does this mean that, in the future, I can ask these idiots if they are Repukes and, if they reply in the affirmative, I can then say, "Sorry, I don't feel I can render aid since my religion forbids me from helping a*sholes."

[sui generis]

110. yeah, emergency room doctors get that all the time too

sew up the drunk bastard who just killed a family of three on a drunken driving spree.

The doctor is interfering with patient choice. That's unethical.

[DRoseDARs]

95. This doctor is not in accordance with some Mennonite sects...

http://www.cmcrosedale.org/about/beliefs.shtml

Birth Control
Love and acceptance of children is taught and encouraged. The prevention of pregnancy when feasible by birth control with pre-fertilization methods is acceptable.



ECs can prevent the fertilization of an egg if administered soon enough after this woman's rape. Given the holier-than-thou stalling by this fucking doctor, an EC will no longer act in this manner. Now it will have to prevent implantation.

[hippiechick]

96. "Good Samaritan" Hospital, my ass ...

IMO, they need to change their name to 'What We Think Is Right For You Hospital'. :mad:

[LynneSin]

100. I went to college in Lebanon County - I would never go to that hospital

it's a very small hospital and the one time I was there it wasn't very clean.

The mother would have been smarter to drive the extra 5-10 miles and go to Hershey Medical Center.

The problem is, these catholic hospitals like Good Samaratin, will not provide EC - it's very common place

[Bridget Burke]

103. I don't think Good Samaritan is Catholic....

It was founded by Episcopalians & does not appear to have any current religious affiliation.

www.gshleb.org/aboutus.cfm?id=15

You'd know to avoid a Catholic hospital after a rape. The least that Good Samaritan could do is ensure that their ER MD's be equipped to do their jobs. Many MD's do ER work as an extra source of money--surely, the "moral" ones would be willing to make the sacrifice.

[LynneSin]

104. Personally I avoid any hospital with religious affliations

I have it in my records that the hospital of my choice here in Delaware is Christiana because there is no way I want to be sent to St. Francis

[LynneSin]

98. I don't buy jeans in Reading because I was RAPED

:grr:

who in their dumbass mind could actually compare the two?

Girls, I'm telling you now - stock up on EC & birth control because they are making it harder and harder to get this stuff.

BTW, I went to college in Lebanon Co and that hospital is nasty. I would rather drive a few extra miles and go to Hershey Medical Center

[Singular73]

108. Its just not a good time to live anywhere named Lebanon

[calmblueocean]

125. Heh! Lebanon, Indiana looks nice, though.

http://www.bccn.boone.in.us/lebanon/

[Kailassa]

111. So I guess it's OK now for Jehovah's Witness doctors

to deny their patients blood transfusions?

[PghTiny]

127. If rapturist docs and pharmacists ...

want to force their patients to have babies, they should pay for ALL costs of raising that baby till adulthood. This includes housing, food, clothing, education, health care, and anything else I neglected to mention.

[Caoimhe]

138. amen and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Kailassa]

217. What you forgot was the emotional costs of raising a child,

especially one who grows each day to look more and more like the animal who raped you.

I knew a man who was raised by his raped Catholic single mother in her effort to do the right thing. He said she never mentioned it and was always kind, but he could always see the anquish behind her smiles.

He gassed himself in his car at 25. She died of an overdose a year later.

[noonwitch]

130. I've got to wonder how high rape stats are, if the pharm ran out of it

The first pharmacy was out of the medication. There must be either a lot of rapes or a lot of unprotected sex going on in that area.

[IronLionZion]

136. Better hope you never see a Jehovah's Witness doctor

then you won't get a life-saving blood transfusion.

There are some religions out there that ban all kinds of medical treatment and medicines.

[smoogatz]

137. How about a Christian Scientist doctor?

Sorry, no antibiotics for you!

[geardaddy]

152. Do Christian Scientists even become doctors?

[smoogatz]

153. Not in the usual sense, as far as I know.

They become "Christian Science practitioners." But if they did become MDs, it appears that a fair number of DUers would support their right to knowingly engage in medical malpractice based on their religious beliefs. It boggles the mind.

[tll]

140. question

apologies if it's been asked and answered...

Is it me or, has this issue (of care providers refusing service based on their religious beliefs) been a relatively new development?

Have they only recently started feeling safe enough to deny certain treatments?

Or were they 'staunch enough in their faith' to stand by their convictions all along, throughout their careers?

If it's the former, I'd have to wonder about the depth of their faith.

If it's the latter, I'd have to wonder why their "policies" were not widely known or advertised.

Damn, if you're the sort who is a man of faith first and a professional second -- a professional as one who can separate their personal beliefs from their job and provide legal and, for much of society, broadly accepted treatments --- well, restrict your practice those who share your beliefs and make it known from the getgo... get a job with your church or affiliated organizations...

or, as has so often been said, get a new job.

[smoogatz]

145. Doctor's rights on end of life issues?

So, do all the fundies and wingnuts who believe that a doctor's right to practice his/her religion on the job should trump a patient's right to comprehensive treatment in cases of rape or incest also believe that a doctor should have the right to withhold life-saving treatment if it would prolong a patient's suffering, in keeping with said doctor's strongly held beliefs? Just curious.

[Kailassa]

220. Religious hospitals are generally very clear on that one.

They follow the dictates of Jovian Economica 4:2-7

"And thou shalt take an accounting of the medical insurance status of the afflicted, and the afflicted that will bring in good profit by way of insurance to your temple of healing, them shall ye pamper and prolong the lives of until they stop shrieking to the lord to be allowed to escape their sufferings, and their bodies have become putrid with worms.

And those that have no such insurance, from them shall ye remove all comfort, and if such unfortunate souls continue to breath, ye shall bus them to the neighbourhood of a distant shelter for the homeless, and place them on the street in that neighbourhood, thereby enriching thine own temple and removing the weight from thy conscience."

[emmadoggy]

148. This is awful. The poor girl.

After reading through the comments here, my feeling is that, if this doctor wants to BE a doctor, but has these strongly held religious beliefs that could interfere with the care of his patients - then he needs to limit his employment/practice only to where his chances of being confronted with cases that would interfere with his beliefs would be extremely slim or non-existent. He should NOT be an ER doc. If this man has a problem with women's reproductive issues then he should be a brain surgeon or a neurologist or a plastic surgeon or work in a private practice where they make it known that there are exclusions to the treatment they provide etc.
And what's up with the girl having to go to one pharmacy who is "out" of the meds and then have to go on to another pharmacy. In my view, when a woman is treated at a hospital for rape, those meds could/should be provided to her right there at the hospital.
In this case, the very LEAST that should have happened (and is just a no-brainer to me) is that this doctor should have "recused" himself from this case and passed that patient to another doctor. Doctors who have a religious aversion to treating certain types of conditions or using certain meds that are LEGAL and accepted practices, should not be allowed to practice in places where that conflict would come into play. They should be required to make those personal exclusions known to their employer and the employer should be required to not place those individuals in those positions. :shrug:

[smoogatz]

149. Bingo.

Well said. And welcome to DU.

[jerry611]

154. There wasn't another doctor in the hospital?

This seems kind of odd. If you don't like one doctor, demand another.

And pharmacies always run out of drugs. They don't keep a large inventory of anything.

[jonstewartgirl]

155. *yawwwwnnnnn*

I wish that somebody would just get rid of these pro life morons that push their "opinion" on other people especially the ones that work in pharmacies. :nopity:

[envelop]

156. Utterly DISGUSTED!

If a person wishes to become a pharmacist or a doctor, there are ethics to which they must adhere. Apparently, in Pennsylvania, there are NO ethics for these professions. Shame on Pennsylvania!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If these doctors and pharmacists refuse to do their jobs, then they should LOSE their jobs. If they are unwilling to do their jobs, you have to wonder WHY they went into these professions in the first place. For the money? In any other profession, if you do a lousy job or you refuse to do your job, then you are OUT OF A JOB! Why should doctors and pharmacists be the exception? Fire the bastards if they won't work!

They are 100% entitled to live their lives as they wish. They are NOT entitled to foist their beliefs upon anyone else, least of all a woman who has been raped. They have NO BUSINESS punishing a woman who has been raped. MY GOD! What kind of people are these, anyway? I wonder if they would be as smug, complacent, and nauseatingly religious if their wives, daughters, cousins, lovers, or sisters were victims of rape.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would sure as hell DIVORCE any man who behaved in this way.

[redqueen]

157. There should be no 'out' for religious beliefs in this situation!

If you want to be a doctor in a non-religious hospital, you should check your devotion to mythology at the door!

Or else open a witch doctor shop so the fundies can keep you in business! And no government funds for you!

:nuke:

[mistertrickster]

165. My grandparents were Amish, I grew up in Church of the Brethern,

I once belonged to a Mennonite Church.

There is nothing inherent in Mennonite's views that preclude birth control or abortion.

The problem is that radical protestants like Mennonites have no overseeing "pope" or body that defines its views.

As a result, one finds that they tend to be influenced by popular culture even more than the orthodox (Roman, Anglican, Eastern) catholics.

Mennonites abjure alcohol not because of a Biblical basis but because of the temperance movement--the pure prairie leagues in rural communities.

Nowadays, you can find right-wing Mennonites that defend US imperialism. They won't fight themselves, of course, because they're pacifists, but they'll support the government's right to fight, and vote for war-mongers. Many have wigged-out into the whole "end times" theology and its concurrent "support" for Israel etc.

The anti-sex right-wing movement affects Mennonites just like the rest of society--perhaps more so, because they have no governing body to determine their positions.

[brentspeak]

174. Interesting info

[Zodiak]

189. Wow.

Never met a right-wing Mennonite. I hope I never do.

My boss is one, and seriously, he is the most pious, nice, caring, gentle, liberal fellow I have ever met. I admit I do not know about his position on birth control, though.

[PegDAC]

198. My aunts and uncles

on my dad's side were right-wing Mennonites. I don't know how far right my cousins are, any more.

[Crunchy Frog]

218. My Quaker boarding school used to play soccer matches

against a Mennonite school. I don't know what their politics were, but I do remember that they had cheerleaders, soda machines, and that the one time our guys were beating theirs, due to the presence on our team of a foreign exchange student who had been captian of his soccer team back home, the Mennonite kids broke our guy's arm in order to take him out of the game and ensure that they would win.

That is the sole extent of my personal experience with Mennonites.

[Sin]

169. Man so close to home.

I'm about 33 miles from Reading live in Pottsville and the Good Sam well the Pottsville one has Overtly religious overtones but didn't know it was that bad down in lebanon How in the hell did a Mennonite get to become a doctor any way there like amish light and apparently he must be really light
there not even allowed to drive cars with chrome on them ( to flashy )
That shit would never fly up here. If he wants his religion in his practice he should leave the hospital and hang out a shingle you know advertising a free bleeding with ever 10 leaches bought

Didn't expect to hear a story like this from around here though amish and the mennonites are by far the pinnacle of nutty crazy religious groups but they at least try to keep to them self and bug no one and expect the same in return.
So interjections from these throw backs really are surprising.
Hes really lucky that the girl didn't have any one there with her that would beat the hell out of him because thats one way of getting another doctor present to actually do there job. they would have to just call another in to treat the first ones life threating injuries.

O yea and the jeans comment is true though we have to drive down there because all the dam outlet stores are there and apparently the 21st century as well.

[PegDAC]

201. Depends on the Conference.

There are different groups of Mennonites, ranging from ultra conservative to moderate. This guy probably belongs to what used to be called General Conference Mennonites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite

[mistertrickster]

210. I doubt that--GC's are associated with Russian Mennonites who

settled in the Plains states.

They also tend to me MORE politically liberal, but it's hard to say because there's a wide diversity . . .

[NotGivingUp]

173. That is so disgusting!

[Dukkha]

187. these religious whackos need removed from medial practice

PERMANENTLY and by ANY means necessary!

furthermore all religion should be banned from hospitals. It has no place in the real world.

[SammyBlue]

190. More proof to back up my "Christianity is a pox on the world."

Now it's Mennonities to add to the list that includes Catholics, Baptists, Mormons and Evangelicals of people who I refuse to have anything to do with!

Intolerant pieces of shit. This doctor's medical license should be yanked immediately. She's a fucking crime victim! Your religious beliefs mean shit, asshole!

[think4yerself]

223. Define tolerance

You sure sound tolerant to me

[think4yerself]

222. Well.

The same reasoning and rationale for supporting the right of a doctor to refrain from administering letal injections (as recently occured in California) applies here. It is wrong to force a doctor to prescribe ANY drug or procedure that they personally believe is immoral, unhealthy, or unwise. What's next, start demanding that ALL practicing OB/GYN's MUST agree to perform abortions or have their license revoked?? Good grief.......

[sangfroid]

226. Ah, but...

There is a real difference between what a doctor believes is unhealthy or unwise, and what a doctor believes is morally wrong. S/he may suggest to a patient that a course of care is unhealthy, but to refuse to participate in a medical action which is beneficial and has no consequences on the patient's health due to his/her religious beliefs opens up a whole can of worms.

I mean, if in my work I was ordered to do something I object to (for example, working on a Sunday) by my boss, he might listen to my objections or even be sympathetic enough to help arrange a replacement, but he would also be within his rights to say "Gee, that's too bad. Good luck finding another job." If this doctor cannot carry out a legal and beneficial medical procedure due to his religious beliefs, he really should be counseled to seek employment someplace where he can make those distinctions without injuring another.

[tll]

227. Accomodating religious beliefs WITHIN REASON

Sorry to shout but, I'm still curious to know...

Has anyone ever asked these people, "how long have you been practicing medicine? how long have you been a devout Christian? Have you always denied services that were in opposition your personal beliefs?"

How many of these providers have been denying treatment, services and prescriptions throughout the entirety of their careers? Or this is a recent development due to a more hospitable political and judicial climate?

And if a more hospitable political and judicial climate is what it takes for many of these people to suddenly find the courage to stand behind their personal convictions in the practice of their professions... how legitimately-held are those convictions actually?

The fact that there are these doctors and pharmacists who are not with faith-based and private organizations makes me wonder. You'd think their beliefs would guide where they sought employment. If you're denying service and working for a non-faith-associated company, hospital or someone else's practice... well, then, you're not just "exercising your freedom of religion" -- you're also evangelizing on someone else's dime.

Not to mention failing to provide your patient with what she is entitled to.

I'll stop beating my head against the wall now...

[Solon]

228. Actually, that's a scheduling problem...

Not working on Sunday as your example indicates and its ILLEGAL for your boss to fire you for refusing to work on a Sunday. Its called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, look it up.

[sangfroid]

229. Actually...

I apologize if my rather forthright language confused the issue, but the VRA only requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Thus, many many employers (including mine, as that was the example I was using) use the excuse of "undue hardship". My colleagues and I work 12 hour shifts, three on and two off, in a remote area. A perspective employee, who was a Christian, argued he should have Sunday off as a day of rest and reflection. The employer refused, on the grounds this placed him and other employees under undue hardship because we would have all had to juggle schedules, work extra hours and so on, and his decision was upheld. Now, the Christian fellow could have argued this was religious discrimination, and he might have won at the USSC level, but right now, that is the state of play.

Getting back on topic, was the hospital REASONABLY accommodating the employee's religious beliefs? I don't think so. Rather, the doctor was forcing his religious beliefs on a person who was suffering and in need. Perhaps the doctor would have done better to reflect WWJD.